DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/15/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment to the claims filed on 04/15/2026 does not comply with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.121(c) because Claim 37 is listed as (Currently Amended) with claim markings. However, the claim text appears to be identical to the text presented in the claims filed on 04/29/2025. Amendments to the claims filed on or after July 30, 2003 must comply with 37 CFR 1.121(c) which states:
(c) Claims. Amendments to a claim must be made by rewriting the entire claim with all changes (e.g., additions and deletions) as indicated in this subsection, except when the claim is being canceled. Each amendment document that includes a change to an existing claim, cancellation of an existing claim or addition of a new claim, must include a complete listing of all claims ever presented, including the text of all pending and withdrawn claims, in the application. The claim listing, including the text of the claims, in the amendment document will serve to replace all prior versions of the claims, in the application. In the claim listing, the status of every claim must be indicated after its claim number by using one of the following identifiers in a parenthetical expression: (Original), (Currently amended), (Canceled), (Withdrawn), (Previously presented), (New), and (Not entered).
[…]
(2) When claim text with markings is required. All claims being currently amended in an amendment paper shall be presented in the claim listing, indicate a status of “currently amended,” and be submitted with markings to indicate the changes that have been made relative to the immediate prior version of the claims. The text of any added subject matter must be shown by underlining the added text. The text of any deleted matter must be shown by strike-through except that double brackets placed before and after the deleted characters may be used to show deletion of five or fewer consecutive characters. The text of any deleted subject matter must be shown by being placed within double brackets if strike-through cannot be easily perceived. Only claims having the status of “currently amended,” or “withdrawn” if also being amended, shall include markings. If a withdrawn claim is currently amended, its status in the claim listing may be identified as “withdrawn—currently amended.”
(3) When claim text in clean version is required. The text of all pending claims not being currently amended shall be presented in the claim listing in clean version, i.e., without any markings in the presentation of text. The presentation of a clean version of any claim having the status of “original,” “withdrawn” or “previously presented” will constitute an assertion that it has not been changed relative to the immediate prior version, except to omit markings that may have been present in the immediate prior version of the claims of the status of “withdrawn” or “previously presented.” Any claim added by amendment must be indicated with the status of “new” and presented in clean version, i.e., without any underlining.
Since the reply filed on 04/15/2026 appears to be bona fide, and in the interest of compact prosecution, claim 37 is considered as (Previously Presented).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 04/15/2026 have been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 37-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 37 and 39 recite the limitation wherein the whole seed grind is applied to a soil or hydroponic medium of the seed in an amount of “from 300 grams (g) of the whole seed grind per kilogram (kg) of the seed to 100,000 g of the whole seed grind per kg of the seed”. The claimed range is not supported by the written description of various values and different ranges. The disclosure of a range of concentrations from “an amount of at least 20 grams (g) of the seed grind per kilogram (kg) of the seed; more preferably at least 100 g of the seed grind per kg of the seed; and most preferably at least 200 g of the seed grind per kg of the seed” [Specification, para. 0086] does not provide written description support for the claimed concentration of “from 300 grams (g) of the whole seed grind per kilogram (kg) of the seed to 100,000 g of the whole seed grind per kg of the seed” nor does the Specification disclose any particular discrete values at the endpoints of the claimed range. The Specification, as originally filed, does not describe the limited amounts in amended claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 39 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sun (CN-105884452-A) with evidence from Ismail (Journal of the National Science Foundation of Sri Lanka, 1983).
In regard to claim 39, Sun teaches a method of enhancing the early growth of rice (e.g. rice seeds sown directed in pots) [para. 0027] comprising:
applying a whole rice seed grind to a rice seed (e.g. rice seeds sown) [0027] in an amount to enhance growth of a rice seedling from the rice seed (e.g. rice treated with bio-fertilizer exhibits weight comparable to treatment with chemical fertilizer) [0031], wherein the whole rice seed grind (e.g. rice flour) [paras. 0018-0020] is applied to a soil (e.g. plastic pots filled with soil) [0027].
The fertilizer product of Sun is applied at a rate of a rate of 30 to 50 kg per mu [0026]. The seeds are grown in a 10 cm diameter pot (e.g. 0.00001178 mu) [0027]. The rice flour is present in an amount of approximately 58% of the bio-fertilizer (e.g. rice flour is added at a ratio of 10:1 in the preparation of the granules and the granules are mixed with the biomass at a mass ratio of 1.8:1) [0020-0022]. Thus, at the rate disclosed by Sun, the rice seed grind is considered applied in an amount of about 0.2065324675 g – 0.34422 g (58% of 30-50 kg / mu * 0.00001178 mu). Each pot ultimately contained 10 rice plants [0027]. Where the average weight of a rice seed is considered 0.0221 g/grain [Ismail, pg. 96, section 4.1], each pot contains about 0.221 g of the seed. Thus, Sun is considered to teach an amount of 934 grams (g) of the whole rice seed grind per kilogram (kg) of the seed to 1,558 g of the whole rice seed grind per kg of the seed. These values and the reduced values [0027] lie within the claimed range.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 4, 7, 11-12, 14, 16-17, 19-20, 22, 24-25, 27, 31, 33-35 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan (CN 106234124-A) as evidenced by FloraVeg (2022), regarding claim 1.
In regard to claim 1, Pan discloses a method in Example 1 of enhancing the early growth of plants (e.g. promote the growth of plant roots and new shoots) [para. 0035] comprising:
applying a whole seed grind (e.g. cornmeal) [0035] to a seed (e.g. before plum seedlings sprout) [0035] in an amount to enhance growth of a seedling from the seed (e.g. promote the growth of plant roots and new shoots) [0035],
wherein the whole seed grind is applied to a soil in an amount of 17% of a fertilizer composition applied at 0.4-0.6 kg per seed [0035]. Where the weight of a Prunus salicina seed is 784.45 mg [FloraVeg], this equates to about 76,786 grams (g) of the whole seed grind per (kg) of the seed to 114,730 g of the whole seed grind per kg of the seed. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) [MPEP 2144.05].
In regard to claim 4, Pan discloses the method according to claim 1, further comprising applying a source of bicarbonate (e.g. ammonium bicarbonate) to the soil in an amount of 10,198 g of the source of bicarbonate per kg of the seed to 15,297 g of the source of bicarbonate per kg of the seed (e.g. 2% of a fertilizer composition applied at 0.4-0.6 kg per seed) [0035], where the weight of a Prunus salicina seed is 784.45 mg [FloraVeg]) [0035], which lies inside the claimed range.
In regard to claims 7, and 31, Pan discloses the method according to claim 4, wherein the source of bicarbonate is ammonium bicarbonate [0035].
In regard to claim 11, Pan discloses method according to claim 1, wherein the seed is corn seed (e.g. cornmeal) [0035].
In regard to claim 12, Pan discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the ground whole seed grind is formed from corn seed (e.g. cornmeal) [0035].
In regard to claim 27, Pan discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the seed grind is 5% to 100% by weight of a plant promoter that is applied to the soil (e.g. 17% of a pre-flowering fertilizer applied to soil) [0035].
In regard to claim 33, Pan discloses the method according to claim 1, further comprising applying a source of sugar (e.g. wheat bran) to the soil [0035].
In regard to claim 34, Pan discloses the method according to claim 1, further comprising applying a source of urea (e.g. chicken manure and urea) [0035-0036].
In regard to claims 35 and 37, Pan discloses the method according to claims 33 and 34, further comprising applying the whole seed grind, urea and source of sugar to the soil or hydroponic medium of a seed or seedling of a plant grown from a seed in an amount from 200 g of the whole seed grind, 1000 g of urea and 100 g of the source of sugar per kg of the seed to 75,000 g of the whole seed grind, 20,000 g of urea and 75,000 g of the source of sugar per kg of the seed (e.g. 86.7-130,027 kilogram (kg) of the whole seed grind, less than 89,234 g of urea, and less than 76,486 g of the source of sugar, depending on the urea content and sugar content of chicken manure and wheat bran) [0035]. These values overlap the claimed ranges.
In regard to claims 14 and 16, Pan discloses a method in Example 1 of enhancing the early growth of plants (e.g. promote the growth of plant roots and new shoots) [para. 0035] comprising:
applying a whole seed grind (e.g. cornmeal) [0035] to a seed (e.g. before plum seedlings sprout) [0035] in an amount to enhance growth of a seedling from the seed (e.g. promote the growth of plant roots and new shoots) [0035],
PNG
media_image1.png
250
313
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the whole seed grind is applied to a soil in an amount of 17% of a fertilizer composition applied at 0.4-0.6 kg per seed [0035] and the seeds are planted at a spacing between plants from 2-3 m [0007]. Thus, one of skill would understand planting occurs at, as illustrated below, for example at 16 seeds / 36 – 81 m2 (e.g. 0.0036 – 0.0081 hectare).
Thus, the seed grind is considered applied to soil in an amount of from 134 kilogram (kg) of the whole seed grind per hectare to 453 kg of the whole seed grind per hectare [0035] which at least overlaps or lies inside the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) [MPEP 2144.05].
In regard to claims 17 and 19, Pan discloses the method according to claims 14 and 16, further comprising applying a source of bicarbonate (e.g. ammonium bicarbonate) to the soil in an amount of from about 15.8 kilogram (kg) of the source of bicarbonate per hectare to 1,031 kg of the source of bicarbonate per hectare [0035-0036] which overlaps with the claimed range.
In regard to claims 20 and 22, Pan discloses the method according to claims 17 and 19, wherein a source of bicarbonate is ammonium bicarbonate [0035].
In regard to claim 24, Pan discloses method according to claim 14, wherein the seed is corn seed (e.g. cornmeal) [0035].
In regard to claim 25, Pan discloses the method according to claim 14, wherein the ground whole seed grind is formed from corn seed (e.g. cornmeal) [0035].
Claims 8, 29-30 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan (CN 106234124-A) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Ming et al. (US Patent No. 5,433,766).
In regard to claims 8, 29-30 and 32, Pan does not explicitly recite wherein the bicarbonate is potassium bicarbonate sodium bicarbonate.
Ming et al. is directed to water soluble agronutrients used the preparation of a slow-release fertilizer [col. 4, lines 63-43]. Examples of suitable water soluble carbonate compounds include sodium carbonate, sodium bicarbonate, ammonium carbonate, ammonium bicarbonate, potassium carbonate and potassium bicarbonate [col. 6, lines 51-55]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute or combine the bicarbonate component(s) recited in Pan for another suitable water-soluble carbonate such as potassium or sodium bicarbonate. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the interchangeability of these carbonate/bicarbonate sources within the composition of Pan.
Claims 10, 23, 36 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan (CN 106234124-A) as applied to claims 1, 14, 35 and 37, respectively above, and further in view of Nutrient Stewardship (2020).
In regard to claims 10, 23, 36 and 38, Pan discloses a pre-flowering fertilizer applied before or when the seed or seedling is planted and a post-flowering fertilizer and fruit-promoting fertilizer [0035-0037] does not explicitly disclose wherein the seed grind/urea is applied as a split application with a portion applied before or when the seed or seedling is planted and another portion applied later.
Nutrient Stewardship is directed to split nitrogen fertilizer applications as a strategy for nutrient management [pg. 2]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Pan’s fertilizer composition as a split application as described by Nutrient Stewardship. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because dividing fertilizer applications into two or more treatments can help growers enhance nutrient efficiency, promote optimum yields and mitigate the loss of nutrients [pg. 2, first para.].
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan (CN 106234124-A) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Isleib (Michigan State, 2016).
In regard to claim 28, Pan does not explicitly recite wherein in the seed grind, source of bicarbonate and other components are added to the soil in the form of granules or tablets.
Isleib is directed to granular and liquid fertilizers. Dry fertilizers are generally incorporated into granules [pg. 1, 2nd para.]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to formulate Pan’s fertilizer composition in the form of granules or tablet. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because granule fertilizers are cheaper in bulk, easier to store, more efficient for heavy applications and have slow-release options) [Isleib, pg. 2, last para.]. Furthermore, Pan discloses a composition consisting of essentially biodegradable components. Biodegradable is interpreted to mean decomposition of at least 90% into carbon dioxide (CO2), biomass and water in a maximum of 48 months [Specification 0063].
Response to Arguments
It is not immediately clear if Applicant's arguments, filed 04/15/2026, are a bona fide attempt to advance the application or the reexamination proceeding to final action. Simply duplicating prior arguments without any changes or new information is generally not proper or effective. The intent of an RCE is to move prosecution forward, usually through some form of substantive action by the applicant. Applicant’s arguments, filed 04/15/2026, are verbatim the same as the arguments submitted 04/29/2025. Any subsequent Request for Continued Examination under 37 CFR 1.114 requires a submission that is a bona fide attempt to advance the application which requires (in the absence of amendments or new evidence) NEW arguments. If no submission is made (no amendments, no new arguments/evidence) any future RCE will be considered deficient and the application will be abandoned.
Applicant’s remarks, filed 04/29/2025 are a substantial duplicate of Remarks previously filed 04/29/2025. These arguments were fully responded to in the Office Action dated 05/19/2025 (pgs. 10-11) and will not be repeated herein.
The declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed 04/15/2026 is insufficient to overcome the rejection of the claims as set forth in the last Office action because:
Declarant argues [4, 18, 19] the term “cotton dregs” referred to by Pan does not describe cotton seed grind. In response to this argument, the term “cotton dregs” or “cotton seed grind” is not relevant to the present rejection in view of Pan which describes a whole seed grind (e.g. cornmeal) [0035]. Cornmeal is a powder made from ground corn kernel (e.g. corn seed).
Declarant argues [5, 10, 11] Pan does not disclose how to grow a seed to a seedling. In response to argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features “growing a seed to seedling” are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Furthermore, Pan teaches enhancing the early growth of plants (e.g. promote the growth of plant roots and new shoots) [para. 0035] by applying a composition to a seed (e.g. before plum seedlings sprout) [0035].
Declarant argues [6], regarding claim 4, Pan does not disclose ammonium bicarbonate and further argues [12] Pan uses only ammonium bicarbonate. This argument is illogical and not persuasive. Pan discloses the method according to claim 4, wherein the source of bicarbonate is ammonium bicarbonate [0035].
Declarant argues [7, 9] the meaning of the term corn flour as it relates to the machine translation of Pan. In the case where the machine translation does not accurately represent the document’s contents, the Examiner relies upon the Chinese language document (not a machine translation) for the teaching, at paragraph [0035] to the term cornmeal (玉米面)with is the powder made from ground corn kernel.
Declarant argues [8, 15, 17] Pan does not disclose sodium bicarbonate or potassium bicarbonate. In response to this argument, reference is made to the Ming reference for teaching that would make obvious the interchangeability of these carbonate/bicarbonate sources within the composition of Pan.
Declarant argues [13] Pan never uses any of the fertilizers referred to as Fertilizer No 1 – No. V more than once. This argument is not persuasive. Nutrient Stewardship is cited for its teaching directed to split nitrogen fertilizer applications as a strategy for nutrient management [pg. 2].
Declarant argues [14, 16] Pan discloses using low amounts of ammonium bicarbonate, below the claimed amount. This argument is not persuasive. Pan discloses the method according to claim 1, further comprising applying a source of bicarbonate (e.g. ammonium bicarbonate) to the soil in an amount of 10,198 g of the source of bicarbonate per kg of the seed to 15,297 g of the source of bicarbonate per kg of the seed (e.g. 2% of a fertilizer composition applied at 0.4-0.6 kg per seed) [0035.
Declarant’s advantages and improvements [20] refer only to the system described in the above referenced application and not to the individual claims of the application. Thus, there is no showing that the objective evidence of nonobviousness is commensurate in scope with the claims. See MPEP § 716.
In view of the foregoing, when all of the evidence is considered, the totality of the rebuttal evidence of nonobviousness fails to outweigh the evidence of obviousness.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jennifer A Smith whose telephone number is (571)270-3599. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30am-6pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Amber R Orlando can be reached at (571) 270-3149. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JENNIFER A SMITH/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1731 April 24, 2026
Prosecution Insights